Section 14 opens Chapter III, the General Exceptions. It provides that nothing is an offence if it is done by a person who is actually bound by law to do it, or who, because of an honest mistake of fact (never a mistake of law), genuinely believes himself to be bound by law to do it.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 14 is marked Exact correspondence:
| BNS 14 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law | S.76 (same rule, same two illustrations) | Exact |
Comparing the bare text directly, BNS Section 14 reproduces old IPC Section 76's rule and both of its illustrations without substantive change. The only textual difference found is in illustration (b): the BNS version refers simply to “a Court,” where the IPC version said “a Court of Justice” — a wording simplification only, with no change to the legal meaning of either illustration.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.
Illustrations.
(a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence.
(b) A, an officer of a Court, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
This section provides a complete defence with two independent limbs, either of which is enough on its own. The first limb covers a person who is actually bound by law to do the act — someone genuinely under a legal duty, such as a soldier obeying a lawful order or a court officer executing a valid warrant. The second limb covers a person who is not in fact so bound, but who, in good faith, believes himself to be bound, and whose belief rests on a mistake of fact rather than a mistake of law. The distinction between the two kinds of mistake is central: an honest factual error — for instance, wrongly believing a particular individual is the person named in a warrant — can found the defence, but a person who correctly understands the facts yet misunderstands what the law actually requires of him cannot rely on this section. Good faith is also essential to the second limb: the belief must be genuinely and honestly held, following due enquiry where enquiry was called for, not a convenient or careless assumption. Where either limb is satisfied, the act is not an offence at all — this is a complete exemption from criminal liability, not merely a mitigating factor in sentencing.
No. The section only ever excuses a genuine mistake of fact. A mistaken understanding of what the law itself requires (a mistake of law) does not qualify, however honestly held.
No. It applies only where the person is actually bound by law, or believes in good faith, by reason of a mistake of fact, that they are so bound. A person who knows they are under no such duty cannot rely on this section.
The act is not an offence at all — it is a complete defence, not merely a factor reducing punishment.